William Ditewig, a theologian and deacon who previously served as the head of the bishops’ secretariat for the diaconate, has been told his public presence in the archdiocese would cause “doctrinal confusion.”....In his 1994 apostolic letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, Pope John Paul II declared that the church “has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women.”

“When the Holy See says it does not have the authority to ordain women to the priesthood, that’s a very specific thing,” said Ditewig. “It leaves the diaconate out of it because the diaconate is not part of the priesthood.”....Members of the Philadelphia archdiocese’s speaker approval commission did not respond to repeated requests for comment on the matter.

Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.Extra caritatem nulla salus.In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness". सर्वभूतहितἌνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas GandhiY dduw bo'r diolch.

Also Orthodoxy does not deny that women were ordained deacons. Whether they will be ordained to the diaconate again in the future is up for debate.

I think Rome isn't helping her own case by trying to keep this under the rug. Just be upfront with it. Thing is, people will figure out that women were ordained deacons in the past and this will be a huge "AHA!" moment for them that will create more chaos and it will make Rome a liar and deceiver.

Also Orthodoxy does not deny that women were ordained deacons. Whether they will be ordained to the diaconate again in the future is up for debate.

I think Rome isn't helping her own case by trying to keep this under the rug. Just be upfront with it. Thing is, people will figure out that women were ordained deacons in the past and this will be a huge "AHA!" moment for them that will create more chaos and it will make Rome a liar and deceiver.

Wait, you're saying the Orthodox believes that women were once ordained "priests" (since the diaconate is part of the priesthood)?

Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.Extra caritatem nulla salus.In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness". सर्वभूतहितἌνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas GandhiY dduw bo'r diolch.

Also Orthodoxy does not deny that women were ordained deacons. Whether they will be ordained to the diaconate again in the future is up for debate.

I think Rome isn't helping her own case by trying to keep this under the rug. Just be upfront with it. Thing is, people will figure out that women were ordained deacons in the past and this will be a huge "AHA!" moment for them that will create more chaos and it will make Rome a liar and deceiver.

Also Orthodoxy does not deny that women were ordained deacons. Whether they will be ordained to the diaconate again in the future is up for debate.

I think Rome isn't helping her own case by trying to keep this under the rug. Just be upfront with it. Thing is, people will figure out that women were ordained deacons in the past and this will be a huge "AHA!" moment for them that will create more chaos and it will make Rome a liar and deceiver.

Wait, you're saying the Orthodox believes that women were once ordained "priests" (since the diaconate is part of the priesthood)?

Orthodoxy believes that all the faithful shares in the priesthood of Christ as noted in the First Epistle of St. Peter. So women do serve as priests when during the Anaphora they exclaim their "Amen".

Also Orthodoxy does not deny that women were ordained deacons. Whether they will be ordained to the diaconate again in the future is up for debate.

I think Rome isn't helping her own case by trying to keep this under the rug. Just be upfront with it. Thing is, people will figure out that women were ordained deacons in the past and this will be a huge "AHA!" moment for them that will create more chaos and it will make Rome a liar and deceiver.

Actually, this is far from agreed upon.

Fr. John Anthony McGuckin went as far in his book as advocating for the reinstatement of Deaconesses and married Bishops. I've seen other literature which conclusively support that women were in fact ordained. I guess the bigger question is if the nature of the ordination is the same as today's ordination of men-only deacons.

Also, correct me if I am wrong, but what is this I read that even recently there are deaconesses in women-only monasteries.

Also Orthodoxy does not deny that women were ordained deacons. Whether they will be ordained to the diaconate again in the future is up for debate.

I think Rome isn't helping her own case by trying to keep this under the rug. Just be upfront with it. Thing is, people will figure out that women were ordained deacons in the past and this will be a huge "AHA!" moment for them that will create more chaos and it will make Rome a liar and deceiver.

Actually, this is far from agreed upon.

Fr. John Anthony McGuckin went as far in his book as advocating for the reinstatement of Deaconesses and married Bishops. I've seen other literature which conclusively support that women were in fact ordained. I guess the bigger question is if the nature of the ordination is the same as today's ordination of men-only deacons.

Also, correct me if I am wrong, but what is this I read that even recently there are deaconesses in women-only monasteries.

To the bolded: My knowledge is not exhaustive, but I have never heard of such a thing. Are you sure we're not talking about female altar servers?

To the underlined: Yes, this is precisely the question. I did not intend to dispute that something called a deaconess did exist at one time.

Also Orthodoxy does not deny that women were ordained deacons. Whether they will be ordained to the diaconate again in the future is up for debate.

I think Rome isn't helping her own case by trying to keep this under the rug. Just be upfront with it. Thing is, people will figure out that women were ordained deacons in the past and this will be a huge "AHA!" moment for them that will create more chaos and it will make Rome a liar and deceiver.

I have heard, though it could be wrong, that it's debatable whether they were ordained (even though there's no doubt that deaconesses did exist).

Also, correct me if I am wrong, but what is this I read that even recently there are deaconesses in women-only monasteries.

Everyone reads about that but no one has ever seen one.

If I can re-find it I will post it. I saw a video of an akathist served by a bishop in a women's monastery in FYROM. There was a nun on the altar and she handed the bishop the cadilla.

Secondly we can not play time-travel and even guess what the culture and circumstances that surrounded anything about female deacons. If we don't understand what they were and we don't understand why they existed then they can't be re-invented. Culture, social norms and mores change. How can we pretend to understand the life of say a 4th century parish in oh, modern Bulgaria? We can't.And btw the Antiochian parish in Troy, MI has girl altar girls. They assist at the entrances. However they are vested and stay behind the iconastasis. My source; someone whose family goes there.

Also perhaps at the most a deaconess was a woman that gave counsel to to women and baptized women. Readers in special circumstances can baptize; take Alaska for instance. Actually anyone can baptize in an emergency. If you can describe in detail the liturgy performed at the Hagia Sophia say in the 7th century and provide orignial music and service instructions I would be shocked.If you can provide original and legitimate texts on deaconesses then we can talk. You must ask; who is translating this stuffwhere are they getting the original source fromwhat is their agenda by doing thisis the original texts they are using, if they are using actual original texts not some false texts inserted into the whole "rudder" just to put a wrench in it. Because a thousand years is a long time to prove something even existed or was created as if it existed by liberal scholars somewhere in recent past or much longer ago past.

For example;We have readers, subdeacons, deacons, priests and bishops. Why? because they have existed from a known point in time. Sure the porter and taper-bearer became merged into the reader tonsure. If deaconesses really ever existed as a major part of the Custom of the Church then in fact we would still have it. I doubt even the historical evidence that I've seen. It could be just a liberal agenda stuck into the mix by a scholar at some point. There is a lot of evidence to show readers through Bishops existed. Actually I'm not even sure about the history of readers and subdeacons. However if it wasn't a significant part of the church history then it would not have continued to be passed down. Especially reader; up until recently only a few could read. This is why the bishop puts the chasuble on the reader and makes him chant a section of the bible in front of everyone. This is why the reader says "The prokeimenon is in tone 6 "oh Lord save your people and bless your..." Because when people couldn't read this is how they knew what to sing. This is why the reader sang the tropar and kondak too. And why he chanted the epistle.I don't know about the subdeacon but it exists. No one seems to really know the history on that one. Other than to have people set aside to assist the deacon during liturgies with the bishop present. Maybe at one point they served a more in-depth role.The deacon is straight up biblical. The Bishop is straight up biblical. Originally each parish had its own bishop.Eventually each church couldn't feasibly have its own bishop so the priest was brought in so he could represent the bishop at that particular church. But deaconesses? Who knows. Maybe an inserted fairy tale by a women's movement at some point in church history.At one point being fed to tigers was part of the Christian life as was standing on pillars and not coming down and castrating yourself. Should we bring that back just because it's neat and historical too?

I believe it about as much as I believe in UFOs. Those references are not original texts. And even if an original text was brought forth as proof I believe it would have to be examined by forensic scientists to make sure it wasn't written in 1986 to make it look like it was from some church father in 256ad.

For example;We have readers, subdeacons, deacons, priests and bishops. Why? because they have existed from a known point in time. Sure the porter and taper-bearer became merged into the reader tonsure. If deaconesses really ever existed as a major part of the Custom of the Church then in fact we would still have it. I doubt even the historical evidence that I've seen. It could be just a liberal agenda stuck into the mix by a scholar at some point. There is a lot of evidence to show readers through Bishops existed. Actually I'm not even sure about the history of readers and subdeacons. However if it wasn't a significant part of the church history then it would not have continued to be passed down. Especially reader; up until recently only a few could read. This is why the bishop puts the chasuble on the reader and makes him chant a section of the bible in front of everyone. This is why the reader says "The prokeimenon is in tone 6 "oh Lord save your people and bless your..." Because when people couldn't read this is how they knew what to sing. This is why the reader sang the tropar and kondak too. And why he chanted the epistle.I don't know about the subdeacon but it exists. No one seems to really know the history on that one. Other than to have people set aside to assist the deacon during liturgies with the bishop present. Maybe at one point they served a more in-depth role.The deacon is straight up biblical. The Bishop is straight up biblical. Originally each parish had its own bishop.Eventually each church couldn't feasibly have its own bishop so the priest was brought in so he could represent the bishop at that particular church. But deaconesses? Who knows. Maybe an inserted fairy tale by a women's movement at some point in church history.At one point being fed to tigers was part of the Christian life as was standing on pillars and not coming down and castrating yourself. Should we bring that back just because it's neat and historical too?

oh angelifre websites, for sure authentic sources. I'm from that academic world where solid backed up sources must be present. In the new american academia personal webpages by individuals hosting them on angelfire count? I pray not.

oh angelifre websites, for sure authentic sources. I'm from that academic world where solid backed up sources must be present. In the new american academia personal webpages by individuals hosting them on angelfire count? I pray not.